OT: Baseball Playoffs

[DoobieKeebler]

I found the posting:

A’s, Giants, San Jose tug of war: Where’s the money to do this? I’m not sure | Talking Points

And thanks for the link, Ray.

I'm very much an old man that does not like change when it comes to the possible re-location of Bay Area teams, even if I hate them (re: Kings), so I really want the A's to stay in Oakland, both because I enjoy the rivalry much more, but also, as Kawakami said, the Giants will be/have the right to be ruthless about keeping San Jose (am I actually agreeing with Kawakami?!?!).

I'm really bothered by the idea that Oakland could potentially lose ALL of its pro sports teams within a decade (or close) - the Warriors, A's, and Raiders - over silly stadium disputes. Yes, all their stadiums/arena are old, but it seems unfair to blame low attendance/bad stadiums on Oakland when none of the Oakland teams have seemingly even TRIED to field watchable 'ball for a long time (Save for good intentions from a senile Al Davis, the Warriors having 1 playoff appearance, and the A's wearing their 2012 Cinderella slippers).

California, as a state, is in the crapper financially, and NO ONE is getting publicly funded stadiums like NY did recently with the Yankees & Mets, which together cost $4 billion & and at the VERY LEAST required NY to seize a shit load of property from the public via eminent domain, so blaming Oakland on not building 3 new pretty stadiums also seems unfair.

I want the Warriors in Oakland; I want the A's in Oakland; I want the Raider in Oakland........ but if I had any real actual say on things in life, I'd be with Jessica Alba right about now, so

 

[Kinzu]

That's pretty much all I have to say about the Braves vs Cardinals game. I have no idea how the MLB can up hold that call despite what everyone saw. They wonder why their game is sinking in popularity? They should call and thank the NHL for all these lockouts otherwise they might be less popular.

And actually I will say one more thing....
We found the replacement refs, and they are still employed and blowing calls.

 

[Rvnight18]

I am a braves fan and I am pissed. 3 errors and how many left on base? But this was a rally that was stole by the ump. And to have to listen to Torrey say that since the time constraint they can't review it like normal pisses me off. Worse part is I am already upset chipper is done, but now his career end on that note...

 

[Ray_Dogg]

I think I lost some brain cells trying to understand that rule. Wow.

 

[Flyingiguana]

outfield fly rule? are they making ths stuff up as they go?

 

[Flyingiguana]

And thanks for the link, Ray.

I'm very much an old man that does not like change when it comes to the possible re-location of Bay Area teams, even if I hate them (re: Kings), so I really want the A's to stay in Oakland, both because I enjoy the rivalry much more, but also, as Kawakami said, the Giants will be/have the right to be ruthless about keeping San Jose (am I actually agreeing with Kawakami?!?!).

I'm really bothered by the idea that Oakland could potentially lose ALL of its pro sports teams within a decade (or close) - the Warriors, A's, and Raiders - over silly stadium disputes. Yes, all their stadiums/arena are old, but it seems unfair to blame low attendance/bad stadiums on Oakland when none of the Oakland teams have seemingly even TRIED to field watchable 'ball for a long time (Save for good intentions from a senile Al Davis, the Warriors having 1 playoff appearance, and the A's wearing their 2012 Cinderella slippers).

California, as a state, is in the crapper financially, and NO ONE is getting publicly funded stadiums like NY did recently with the Yankees & Mets, which together cost $4 billion & and at the VERY LEAST required NY to seize a shit load of property from the public via eminent domain, so blaming Oakland on not building 3 new pretty stadiums also seems unfair.

I want the Warriors in Oakland; I want the A's in Oakland; I want the Raider in Oakland........ but if I had any real actual say on things in life, I'd be with Jessica Alba right about now, so

jessica alba is mine, get your own imaginary wife!

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

It was a bad call, but not the downright terrible robbery people are making it. You *can* call infield fly rule in the outfield, it applies to any popup that the infielder can get to very easily and sit under, under the circumstances. (The point is to prevent the fielder from just letting it drop and getting a quick two outs, which is still the case even a few feet into the outfield). Clearly this ball was too deep, the SS didn't have an easy play at all, and the ump made the call too late to boot.

But fundamentally, there was nothing wrong with it, infield fly was in play even on the grass. If the ball had been hit 10 ft. shorter infield fly would have probably been the correct call.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

jessica alba is mine, get your own imaginary wife!

You want Alba, aye?

I will trade you Jessica Alba if you trade me ScarJo & a conditional Stacy Keibler.

Too bad Lohan blew out her face in that career ending "attractiveness" injury a few years back.

 

[imac_21]

They got the call right. The SS is there, camps under the ball, then moves when he thinks he hears the LF coming in. That's an infield fly. It doesn't matter where the ball lands relative to the diamond. It's about whether or not an infielder can make a play with routine effort. That was a very routine for a MLB short stop. That was a routine play for a lot of HS short stops.

The reason behind the rule is so that the SS can't stand right next to where that ball is going to fall, pick it up, throw it to third, then pass it along to second for a double play. That's why the rule only applies with less than 2 out and runners on first and second or the bases loaded.

If the SS stood next to that rather than running away from it, and they don't call the Infield Fly, it's a double play.

 

[Kinzu]

They got the call right. The SS is there, camps under the ball, then moves when he thinks he hears the LF coming in. That's an infield fly. It doesn't matter where the ball lands relative to the diamond. It's about whether or not an infielder can make a play with routine effort. That was a very routine for a MLB short stop. That was a routine play for a lot of HS short stops.

The reason behind the rule is so that the SS can't stand right next to where that ball is going to fall, pick it up, throw it to third, then pass it along to second for a double play. That's why the rule only applies with less than 2 out and runners on first and second or the bases loaded.

If the SS stood next to that rather than running away from it, and they don't call the Infield Fly, it's a double play.

And he was going to do that from 70ft out in the outfield with all the runners staring at him? If he caught it they would have easily made it back to base. If he drops it they easily advance to the next base (which is what happened). So where in all of this was making that call correct? How was the call protecting Atlanta from a sneaky double-play? It's call meant to be used on routine infield fly balls not balls the SS has sprint to in shallow outfield. How is a ball hit that far out of the infield considered routine?

 

[4thstreet]

A's are playing the Tigers by the way. 2-3 format so we start out in Detroit.

As for the stadium. Selig won't resolve the territory issue. At some point they need to go to plan B. Kawakami wrote about the Selig thing not long ago. I wanna say it comes down to compensation to the Giants which can't be afforded by the A's.

cold and wet forecast for whole weekend.

 

[sjballer03]

Say what you want about that rule, but the ump called it way too late. I believe the timing of the call is critical during the application of the rule.

 

[imac_21]

And he was going to do that from 70ft out in the outfield with all the runners staring at him? If he caught it they would have easily made it back to base. If he drops it they easily advance to the next base (which is what happened). So where in all of this was making that call correct? How was the call protecting Atlanta from a sneaky double-play? It's call meant to be used on routine infield fly balls not balls the SS has sprint to in shallow outfield. How is a ball hit that far out of the infield considered routine?

The runners were on the base. That's why they would have made it back easily. If you don't think the defense could throw the ball from very shallow left to third and to second before the runner on first could go 90 feet, you're crazy.

And he didn't drop the ball. He left the spot because he thought the LF was there. If it dropped at his feet and he picked it up on one hop it's a very different situation.

The rule states any fly ball that an infielder can catch with routine effort with less than two outs and runners on first and second or the bases loaded, the batter is out. The short stop got to the spot easily. So easily he had time to camp, then move four strides out of the way before the ball hit the ground.

That is a text book Infield Fly rule.

The umpire is not supposed to wait to see if the runners can safely advance to make the call. This umpire made the call before the ball hit the ground and it was STILL somewhat late.

The call was right. If you can't see that, you don't understand the rule.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Imac, how about this factoid:

To put Friday's controversial play into context, in the past three seasons, there were six infield flies that were not caught in the majors, according to Baseball Info Solutions, the longest measured at 178 feet.
Friday's infield fly was measured at 225 feet from home plate, according to Baseball Info Solutions

I think it was justifiable, but *way* too deep to be the clear-cut infield fly you're making it. In fact, it was fairly unprecedented....everyone I've heard has said they've never seen a call like that.

 

[imac_21]

Imac, how about this factoid:



I think it was justifiable, but *way* too deep to be the clear-cut infield fly you're making it. In fact, it was fairly unprecedented....everyone I've heard has said they've never seen a call like that.

There's nothing in the rule that says how far the ball has to be from home plate. The rule states if an infielder can make a play with routine effort, it's an infield fly.

Watch the play. The SS gets there with enough time to then get well out of the way to allow the ball to drop. If the umpire feels he could have caught it without straining himself, it's an infield fly.

I just watched it again. The SS floats out to the spot, not really any hustle at all to get there. He's calling it the whole time, showing he feels it's an easy play. He plants his feet right where he needs to be to make the catch, then takes 3 steps to get out of the way.

It's about as routine of a play as it gets for a major league short stop.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

The runners were on the base. That's why they would have made it back easily. If you don't think the defense could throw the ball from very shallow left to third and to second before the runner on first could go 90 feet, you're crazy.

And he didn't drop the ball. He left the spot because he thought the LF was there. If it dropped at his feet and he picked it up on one hop it's a very different situation.

The rule states any fly ball that an infielder can catch with routine effort with less than two outs and runners on first and second or the bases loaded, the batter is out. The short stop got to the spot easily. So easily he had time to camp, then move four strides out of the way before the ball hit the ground.

That is a text book Infield Fly rule.

The umpire is not supposed to wait to see if the runners can safely advance to make the call. This umpire made the call before the ball hit the ground and it was STILL somewhat late.

The call was right. If you can't see that, you don't understand the rule.

Textbook infield fly rule? That's a bit of a stretch. I will give you that he could have made the play, but the fact that it was so far into the outfield makes the play no longer "routine." The fact that he is so close to the left fielder (to the point of confusion) and backpedaling also makes this play no longer "routine." And the fact that he is calling it doesn't mean it is necessarily an easy play. When I play baseball I will call guys off from the jump when even when I know I am going to be making a tough catch, or even diving for it. I don't think it is as clear a bad play as being made out, but I also wouldn't go so far to call it "routine" or "textbook."

 

[Bemular]

Not throwing my hat in this debate, but the biggest complaint I'm hearing is not the ease of the play, but rather the depth of it. At some point the ball has to be too deep to be an infield fly.

 

[imac_21]

Textbook infield fly rule? That's a bit of a stretch. I will give you that he could have made the play, but the fact that it was so far into the outfield makes the play no longer "routine." The fact that he is so close to the left fielder (to the point of confusion) and backpedaling also makes this play no longer "routine." And the fact that he is calling it doesn't mean it is necessarily an easy play. When I play baseball I will call guys off from the jump when even when I know I am going to be making a tough catch, or even diving for it. I don't think it is as clear a bad play as being made out, but I also wouldn't go so far to call it "routine" or "textbook."

Watch the highlight. He cruises to the ball. He doesn't hustle even a little bit. Every SS in MLB, and a lot in HS get to that ball with virtually no effort. Just like last night.

He got to the spot, set up camp, then had time to move 3 steps off the spot. And he did it without hustling. That's routine.

 

[imac_21]

Not throwing my hat in this debate, but the biggest complaint I'm hearing is not the ease of the play, but rather the depth of it. At some point the ball has to be too deep to be an infield fly.

There is nothing in the rule regarding depth. The rule states an infield fly will be called if an infielder can make the play with normal or routine effort.

That was the play yesterday.

Adding depth to it would bring all kinds of complications. If you set the depth at 175 feet, does that mean a ball at 175'1 is not an infield fly? How do you accurately determine the depth to make the call?

 

[Bemular]

There is nothing in the rule regarding depth. The rule states an infield fly will be called if an infielder can make the play with normal or routine effort.

That was the play yesterday.

Adding depth to it would bring all kinds of complications. If you set the depth at 175 feet, does that mean a ball at 175'1 is not an infield fly? How do you accurately determine the depth to make the call?

Put an infield fly line across the field like the 3pt arc - Of course I'm kidding. I just watched the play - several times - and read the rule. I think this debate is going to be going on for a while.